Battery Energy Storage Systems

Protecting farmland is top priority.

By Emily Croft

Rural municipalities across Ontario have been receiving proposals for the development of Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) over the past few years.

While most projects are in their early stages, prime farmland has been selected as the potential home for a number of these proposed sites. Concerns about the use of these agricultural acres, as well as a lack of clarity on implications for local health and safety, has left many Ontario farmers feeling uncertain about BESS.

Justin Rangooni, executive director of Energy Storage Canada, explains that these systems are just batteries with the same technology you’d find in your phone, laptop, or car.

“It’s just a much bigger size stocked in a storage container,” says Rangooni.

“They are powered with electricity and can send power back to the grid when needed at high demand or low production times.

“The purpose of any energy storage system is to lower emissions by storing surplus electricity generated from clean sources for when production is low, or demand is high. They store low-cost energy when it’s not needed and can provide grid reliability with its response to fluctuations in supply and demand.”

With increasing energy demands associated with development in rural towns, the purpose of BESS is to increase the capacity and reliability of the electricity grid. Can these sites fit into rural areas, providing the intended benefits without risking greater loss of farmland?

The proposal process

A number of BESS projects are being proposed across rural Ontario.

For proposals to move forward, proponents must identify an ideal site and obtain support from the respective municipalities.

Rangooni explains how sites are selected: “It starts with independent electricity system operators.

“They identify the grids most in need of upgrades and expansion – those with growing demand or where the infrastructure is getting older.”

Other considerations, such as ability to connect to the grid, will also be reviewed. Rangooni says that generally brownfield sites, land that is vacant after previously being used for industrial purposes, are preferred.

“Crucially, they need that municipal support resolution. They need to pick locations agreeable to the local community,” says Rangooni.

This process should involve discussion with the landowner of the proposed site, and the local surrounding community.

After municipal support is received, the proponents should continue to work with the community through the review process and project planning.

This would include working with local emergency response teams to develop safety strategies, and fire prevention and suppression plans. It would also involve environmental assessments and evaluating the potential for disruptive noise or light.

These aspects of the proposal process are also the basis for some of the concerns expressed by farmers near potential BESS sites.

Concerns

“We are seeing that the majority of concerns are really associated with lack of familiarity,” says Rangooni.

“These proposals are typically the first time the idea has been exposed to these regions.”

Many farmers have questions about why these projects are proposed for farmland, if they are safe, and what they mean for the future of the agricultural land. Some concerns may be addressed through improved communication from proponents, but other questions may identify limitations in the planning process.

The OFA maintains its position that the best use of farmland is growing crops, explains Ethan Wallace, executive member of the OFA.

“It’s a use of the land that isn’t farming,” says Wallace about the BESS sites.

“The one proposed by my farm in Huron County was a 45-acre site, and that’s land permanently taken out of farming. OFA’s position is that these projects be placed on sites to minimize the impact on agricultural lands.”

Janet Harrop, past president of Wellington Federation of Agriculture, says that two BESS sites proposed for Wellington County in Elora and Belwood are in the early stages of development. The sites are anticipated to be 12 to 15 acres each.

“Our main concern is that both sites are scheduled to be put on prime agricultural land. Our Class 1 farmland is foundational and finite. Seeing this land not being used to grow food, particularly on prime farmland, is something that we are totally against.”

“What we’ve seen from the presentations suggests that once the 10-year contract has come to the end of its use, the sites will be converted back to ag land. We recognize that would be virtually impossible because they’ll be digging down and putting in a concrete base,” says Harrop.

Rangooni explains that batteries do have the opportunity to have a smaller footprint.

“They can be installed on moveable platforms and skids that can be removed when a battery is at the end of its life. At this point, the site can return to its previous use,” says Rangooni.

Visual renderings of the proposed Wellington County sites which were presented at municipal meetings show roadways, concrete bases, and in-ground water tanks, which do not take advantage of the portability identified by Rangooni and would create challenges in returning to farmland.

Proposals for BESS sites on agricultural land also bring up concerns about land zoning.

Harrop notes that current agricultural zoning would allow for BESS projects on farmland as a secondary use, but as they are considered on-farm diversified uses, the scope needs to be limited.

“It should be no more than two per cent of the property site, or up to a hectare, which is smaller than what was being proposed,” says Harrop.

“If the projects require re-zoning and are not ag related, it should be on municipal industrial land.”

Rob Vanden Hengel, vice-president of Huron County Federation of Agriculture, says that the major concerns surrounding the proposed Huron County site in Seaforth were lack of clarity about regulations, reflecting Rangooni’s observations of lack of familiarity. Some information has not reached affected residents.

“A lot of the concerns that we heard were basically that at this time last year there were not a whole lot of rules and regulations for the sites in terms of minimum distances, noise, lights, and stuff like that,” says Vanden Hengel.

He did elaborate that there was a meeting in 2023 that welcomed the public, during which the proponent shared contact information. Vanden Hengel says that, from what he has heard, anyone who contacted the proponent with questions received a response. The company has not submitted a formal application to the IESO since the meeting.

Another major concern is the risk of fires, the implications of fires for nearby residents and livestock, and the demand on local emergency services.

“That was one of questions people asked us: Given it’s a battery, if there’s a fire, what are you supposed to do? There are concerns around that. Another concern is, because of the chemicals in the battery, if there’s a fire, what does the smoke do to the nearby humans and livestock?” says Vanden Hengel.

Rangooni explains that to minimize the environmental impact of the batteries and avoid chemical runoff, potential fires would not be suppressed with water. Instead, proponents work with local fire services to develop a detailed prevention and suppression plan. This plan would detail strategies to keep the fire contained to an individual container and minimize the impact outside of it. Land planning and communication with the community also plays a role in safety.

There is still potential for concerns to be addressed, reaching a compromise that allows rural communities to receive the intended benefits of BESS.

Solutions and Alternatives

Battery Energy Storage Systems offer benefits to the municipalities in which they are proposed.

The development of these projects will provide more reliable energy to their respective grids, reducing the sale of excess energy at a loss during high production and low usage, and ensuring availability during peak usage times. Rangooni notes that these batteries will also help provide electricity during outages.

Despite these benefits, concerns surrounding the projects emphasize the need for clarity in regulations and protocols with those affected. Proponents could also consider alternative sites, protecting valuable farmland.

Rangooni stresses that BESS is safe and should not be a risk to nearby residents.

“There are over hundreds of MW installed behind the meter at industrial places, where people work and are living, and they have been in for over 10 years. There are also utilities installing them within their systems too,” says Rangooni, noting that the technology is not new.

“There are rigorous codes and standards for fire detection and suppression, and detailed prevention plans are always in place for these systems. Every proponent is responsible for working with fire officials on comprehensive safety requirements, fire suppression systems, and safety response systems.”

It is important that proponents communicate these safety measures and plans to ensure that residents feel safe, and confirm that local fire departments have the capacity to meet the demands of both the BESS project and the community.

Rangooni encourages those looking for more information to reach out to Energy Storage Canada and the proponents of local potential sites.

For Ontario producers, the greatest concern is the use of farmland for non-agricultural purposes. As these projects move forward, it’s critical that alternative sites are reviewed, particularly if proponents suggest designs that do not allow for easy conversion back into farmland.

Harrop shares that the Wellington Federation of Agriculture has created a list of considerations that they believe should be reviewed when sites for BESS are selected. The list includes soil classes, zoning related to on-farm diversified uses, setbacks from existing structures, emergency plans, and strategies for decommissioning.

Wallace says that if concerns are addressed, BESS has the potential to benefit the Ontario economy.

“Right now, the biggest concern is the usage of farmland for things other than farming. We are losing 319 acres a day to urban sprawl; if we can minimize that and use the land for farming, that is what we feel is best.”

“OFA isn’t necessarily opposed to these projects moving forward, if we can find alternate ways to use them to reap the benefits.”

Wallace suggests using brownfield sites or abandoned industrial sites, as Rangooni previously noted as the preferred location.

Communication and community feedback will play a major role in reaching compromise.

Wallace says, “If they can be done properly and we get the benefits, then yes, they could be good.

“But there are valid concerns surrounding them that still need to be addressed.” BF